It’s Good To Live In A Two-Daily Town (Brown/Warren Ceasefire Edition)

Now that the goo-goos have stopped cooing for a moment  about the Super PAC disarmament pact between likely U.S. Senate rivals Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren,  it’s time for the real world to weigh in – specifically free speech advocates and hard-headed business folk.

And the local dailies have obliged. Start with Jeff Jacoby’s Boston Globe piece headlined “Shut up, they explained” (an always-welcome echo of the great Ring Lardner). Lede:

FOR SHEER antidemocratic gall, it is hard to top the so-called “People’s Pledge’’ signed on Monday by US Senator Scott Brown and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren. The agreement is designed to keep third-party advertising from playing a role in their closely watched race for the seat that Brown won in a special election in 2010. Of course there is not the slightest chance the deal will actually keep independent ads off the airwaves or the Internet between now and November’s election. Yet Brown and Warren claim to be sincere in their determination to keep third parties from trying to influence this year’s campaign.

If so, shame on them.

Jacoby contends that the deal is not in the public interest, as the prospective candidates say, only in their own.  “Even for a pair of Massachusetts politicians,” he writes,” it takes remarkable chutzpah to demand that citizens stifle themselves about a political choice that may affect their families and fortunes for years to come.”

By “citizens,” of course, he means deep-pocketed special interests. Then again, if corporations can be people, why not citizens as well?

Boston Herald columnist Jessica Heslam, by contrast, examines the business side of the equation:

Pols’ pact could cost local TV

The pact between U.S. Senate rivals Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren to block political attack ads from outside groups has First Amendment advocates fuming and could cost Boston TV stations millions in potential revenue — although one former exec believes there’s plenty of money to go around.

Heslam touches on First Amendment issues (“probably lawful,” says civil-rights attorney Harvey Silverglate) and the potential financial fallout (the agreement won’t stick, says broadcast consultant Ed Goldman).

But here’s the hardworking staff’s favorite part:

The campaigns are planning to send letters to all media outlets, asking them to respect their agreement and to reject ads placed by outside groups in the race.

Shut up! No explanation needed, right?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to It’s Good To Live In A Two-Daily Town (Brown/Warren Ceasefire Edition)

  1. Steve Stein says:

    This move will have one clear loser – broadcast media outlets who will miss out on ad buy dollars. So should we expect them to be happy about it?

  2. How about if the Koch brothers decide to spend $15 million tomorrow on ads in Massachusetts attacking Scott Brown for being too moderate?

    If so, then Warren has to donate every last penny she’s got to Brown’s favorite charity: National Right-to-Life Org or whatever.

    The cease fire is a doomed model.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s